SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
public health
Why Is the FDA Downplaying the Risk of Microplastics From Food Packaging?
The agency charged with keeping our food safe doesn’t think microplastics in food are a big deal, and claims they are probably coming from the food rather than the plastic it’s packaged in.
Sep 11, 2024
The Food and Drug Administration has entered the plastic pollution fray. This summer the agency published a web page ostensibly meant to calm consumers’ nerves about the recent spate of reporting on microplastic contamination. Despite the FDA’s clout, the publication relies on hand-waving and empty reassurances, which do nothing to instill trust in the agency charged with keeping our food supply safe.
Microplastics seem to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days. Sadly, tongues aren’t the only place researchers find microplastics in our bodies. The minuscule plastic particles have now been found in our blood, testes, and placentas. This came after researchers first established microplastics are present in every place they’ve looked, from the soil to Mount Everest. What’s next, tiny plastic particles passing through our blood-brain barriers?
It’s worth taking stock of how we got to this point of such widespread contamination. Every single thing made of plastic eventually breaks down. This happens due to environmental conditions such as friction, heat, and exposure to light. In the process, tiny plastic particles enter the environment and then degrade into smaller and smaller particles, with no end to the process. Plastic objects become microplastics, which eventually become nanoplastics. Each degradation stage makes it easier for the contaminants to enter our bodies, where they may release the chemicals used to make them. Nearly all plastic is made from oil and gas and then processed with myriad other chemicals—many dangerous toxicants or undisclosed. Research and testing have shown that some chemical additives and processing aids are likely leaching out of plastic food packaging.
Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply.
Plastic is a ubiquitous food packaging material, so it would seem logical to think that plastic packaging releases microplastics into the foods and beverages packaged within and into the outside environment. And some researchers have documented just that. However, the FDA makes the astounding claim that the microplastics and nanoplastics found in food are most likely from “environmental contamination where foods are grown or raised,” but not from food packaging. The agency claims to make this leap from logic due to insufficient evidence that microplastics and nanoplastics are migrating from plastic food packaging into food. Yet, evidence is beginning to surface, so why is the FDA confusing consumers about microplastics? Researchers tested bottled water for microplastics and found that their data shows contamination is likely coming in part “from the packaging and/or bottling process.” Others found a relationship between plastic bottle density and the pH of packaged mineral water with the amount of microplastic contamination found in the packaged waters.
Discounting plastic food packaging as a source of microplastic contamination is a stretch when we know that everything made of plastic degrades. It’s far more likely that the microplastics found in food came from various sources, including packaging, the food itself, the soil in which it was grown, and food processing equipment. The bigger remaining question is precisely what contamination is doing to our bodies. Researchers are beginning to scratch the surface of that question, and the results are problematic. Recent publications show that breathing microplastics into our lungs may be affecting respiratory systems, and microplastics that cross the blood-brain barrier could impact our behavior. We can expect many more headlines about microplastics and our health in the next few years.
By sounding so certain that food packaging is not a source of microplastics and nanoplastics, the FDA may be misleading and confusing consumers just because the number of studies showing evidence of microplastic migration is thin. A lack of evidence due to the developing nature of this research does not assure us there is no evidence waiting to be found. Unfortunately, this see-no-evil approach is precisely how chemical management happens in the U.S.; new chemicals are created and sold without safety testing.
We are witnessing the early stages of a widespread contamination moment, where communities begin to recognize what is happening, and decision-makers are expected to address concerns meaningfully. Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply. This problem will get bigger before it gets better due to the massive volume of plastics already in the world and because plastic is currently being made in greater and greater quantities. All the more reason for us to turn off the petrochemical plastics tap as much as we can, for instance, by stemming the widespread manufacture and use of single-use plastics that we lived without just a decade or two ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most US Voters Want Plastics Industry Held Accountable for Recycling Deception: Poll
"No one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers. What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Sep 09, 2024
Most U.S. voters would support officials in their state taking legal action against the plastics and fossil fuel industries for creating plastic pollution, based on evidence that they misled the public about the viability of recycling their products, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll, conducted by Data for Progress and the Center for Climate Integrity, follows a report CCI released in February that showed decades of industry deception about the recyclability of plastics and a yearslong, ongoing investigation by the California attorney general, which could lead to a lawsuit.
The poll indicates that 70% of voters support such a lawsuit and even 54% of Republicans do so.
"Regardless of your politics, no one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers," Davis Allen, a CCI researcher, said in a statement. "What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Allen's colleague Alyssa Johl, a CCI vice president, argued that the poll bolsters the case that attorneys general should pursue lawsuits against industry for its role in creating plastic waste and deceiving the public about recycling.
"As we're watching to see what comes from California's investigation, it's clear that the public is very concerned about the plastic waste crisis and would support holding Big Oil and the plastics industry accountable for the fraud of plastic recycling," she said. "Any attorney general or public official who is considering action on this issue should know that both the law and public opinion are on their side."
📣 New poll from us & @DataProgress:
The vast majority of U.S. voters — including 54% of Republicans — support legal action against Big Oil & the plastics industry for lying about the viability of plastic recycling and causing the plastic waste crisis. https://t.co/YFjmxzeOYT pic.twitter.com/0oHAMHPtem
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climatecosts) September 9, 2024
The survey, conducted on 1,231 web panel respondents, also included a number of other plastics-related questions. More than two-thirds of respondents, after being prompted with information during the course of the survey, said the plastics industry should have "a great deal of responsibility" to address the plastic crisis, while 59% said the same about the fossil fuel industry. The industries are in fact connected; almost all plastics are made out of fossil fuels.
More than 60% of respondents strongly agreed—and 85% agreed at least "somewhat"—that it was deceptive to put the "chasing arrows" symbol on products that were not in fact recyclable. California restricted the practice with a 2021 law, and the Federal Trade Commission is revising its guidelines following recommendations issued last year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which said the use of the symbol can be "deceptive or misleading."
The poll showed that Americans tend to overestimate the amount of plastic being recycled. The average respondent guessed that about 45% of plastic gets recycled, when in fact a 2021 Greenpeace report indicated that the real figure is about 6%.
Despite the negative impacts of plastic waste, plastic production continues to increase worldwide. About 220 million tons of plastic waste are expected to be generated this year alone. Last week, a study in Nature, a leading journal, estimated global plastic waste emissions at about 52 million metric tons per year.
Recycling plastic is logistically challenging because many products are made of composites of different types of plastic and because the quality of the material goes down with each generation of use.
The poll comes out during the final stages of negotiations on a global plastics treaty, which has been in the works for several years. Ahead of United Nations General Assembly meetings this week, a group of celebrities including Bette Midler called for strong action on plastics in an open letter published by Greenpeace.
The final global plastics treaty negotiations will be held in Busan, South Korea starting November 25. The previous major round of negotiations, in April, was dominated by corporate lobbyists, advocates said. Activists and Indigenous leaders were also left out of a smaller meeting in Thailand last month, drawing criticism.
The call for accountability for plastics producers comes as the fossil fuel industry already faces legal action for its role in perpetuating the climate crisis. Dozens of cities and states have filed suits. None has yet reached the trial stage. The one that is closest to doing so, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has been the subject of political and legal wrangling, with the industry trying to have the suit dismissed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harris Should Listen to Pennsylvanians, Not Pundits, on Fracking
Many Pennsylvanians oppose fracking because we don’t want to prolong climate destruction or because folks who live near these fracking pads are sick of the smell, the noise, and the threat to their health.
Sep 07, 2024
It’s a new day here in Pennsylvania, where folks waking up eagerly check the internet to see how the frackers did last night, where the ideal weekend getaway is a quaint mountain bed-and-breakfast animated by the constant whine of natural gas wells, and where contented people have been known to blurt out, “I love the smell of tert-Butylthiol in the morning!”
OK, that’s not actually the Keystone State I’ve come to know and love since I moved here 35 years ago (where the number one fall issue among voters is probably Bryce Harper’s banged-up body), but that is the portrait of Pennsylvania someone who lives in Oregon or Oklahoma might get from watching too much cable TV news, where political pundits insist our love for unconventional extraction of fossil fuels is more powerful than our desire for cheesesteaks.
Fracking—which was more of a hot-button issue back in the 2010s—is back in the news with the sudden arrival of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee. Harris had said in 2019—while appealing to left-wing Democrats as a 2020 White House hopeful—that she opposed fracking before changing her position when she joined President Joe Biden’s ticket. According to the TV talking heads, even that brief flirtation with opposing Pennsylvania’s most beloved gas-drilling process might cause her to lose the commonwealth to former President Donald Trump in November.
Maybe a good question for Harris at Tuesday’s make-or-break debate here in Philadelphia would be not to yet again ask her why she briefly opposed fracking in 2019, but to prod her on how she can support it now when little kids are getting cancer.
After Harris’ widely publicized CNN interview last month, host Abby Phillips questioned whether the fracking issue even matters much “except in Pennsylvania”—echoing comments I’ve heard on CNN and MSNBC probably a dozen times that the Democrats must pledge allegiance to the fracking gods to have any hope of winning our 19 electoral votes.
None of them really know what they’re talking about.
Here’s the truth from someone who actually lives in Pennsylvania. Most folks, especially in areas like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and their suburbs where many voters reside, don’t really talk about fracking—certainly not as much as the big issues like the economy or abortion rights. And when we do discuss it, many Pennsylvanians—perhaps even a majority—oppose fracking, because we don’t want to prolong the climate destruction of fossil fuels, or because folks who live near these fracking pads are sick of the smell, the noise, and the threat to their health.
A 2021 poll commissioned by the pro-sustainability Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI) found just 31% of Pennsylvanians support continued fracking here, and that a majority want the process to end either immediately (25%) or see it phased out over time (30%). Other surveys show the state more evenly divided, but unfettered support for unconventional gas drilling doesn’t top 50%. One reason for the split is that the economic benefits to Pennsylvania that are cited again and again by TV pundits just haven’t materialized outside of just one or two of the state’s 67 counties. A series of studies have shown that fracking is not a major job category here, that the number of new hires has never matched the industry’s overblown promises, and that counties with fracking activity have mostly underperformed the state and national economy.
“I find the whole discussion”—around fracking—“pretty deeply frustrating,” Sean O’Leary, a senior researcher for ORVI, told me this week. “I think most Pennsylvanians are at best ambivalent about fracking as a technology.” And he thinks a fair amount of the public support for fracking is reinforced by politicians—including Democrats like Gov. Josh Shapiro—constantly overstating the economic rewards.
This means that when it comes to the presidential race, the so-called experts are getting the issue completely bass-ackward. Think about it: The voters who see fossil fuels as a gift from God and nod along to Republicans’ “Drill, baby, drill” chants are in Trump’s back pocket already. But Harris’ resolute endorsement of fracking—minus a more concrete plan to end America’s addiction to oil and gas—could slow her momentum with young voters who rank climate change as a top issue and have been drifting back to the Democrats since Biden’s withdrawal.
But the myth that fracking is overwhelmingly popular in Pennsylvania has become a feedback loop between politicians—some of them heavily funded by oil-and-gas campaign dollars, some of them seeking the endorsements of trade unions that have bought into the job-creation hype—and a lazy news media. Since fracking resurfaced as a campaign issue, reporters for outlets likeCNN or The Washington Post have flocked to places like Washington County, where the ORVI found the economy has performed somewhat better than other heavily fracked counties—partly because of exurban Pittsburgh job growth unrelated to fossil fuels—and hunt down the local bar owner who’s slinging pitchers to parched well workers.
They never seem to go to a community like Dimock in north-central Pennsylvania. The small Susquehanna County community, which was made semi-famous in the 2009 documentary Gasland when a resident lit his methane-contaminated tap water on fire, had enjoyed a 12-year ban on fracking activity. Some residents felt deeply betrayed when the Shapiro administration cut a deal last year that allowed Coterra Energy to resume drilling in return for admitting past pollution and $16 million for a new clean water line. That won’t come until 2027 at the earliest, but the fracking started immediately.
“We sit here pretty unhappy,” Victoria Switzer, a Dimock resident and anti-fracking activist, told me. She said lateral drilling for gas is passing under her nearly seven-acre property in what she’d thought would be a rural paradise, and that “I swear you can feel it and you can hear it as it whines, a horrible noise.” Switzer and other fracking opponents in their politically divided community say they feel “betrayed” by Shapiro’s deal that allowed drilling to resume.
ORVI’s O’Leary said that people who actually live in Pennsylvania’s southwest corner or north-central regions “know fracking imposes significant burdens—health burdens, quality of life burdens, and you know, if you live in those regions, it is not a source of jobs and income.” The institute’s 2021 study found that 22 Appalachian counties with significant fracking saw only 1.7% job growth when the national average was 10%. People often moved away from communities like Dimock, which lost nearly 18% of its population in the 2010s. The broken economic promises—which are now being repeated, and broken, for fracking-related projects like ethane crackers and hydrogen hubs—are reason enough to be cynical about fossil fuels and politicians’ reluctance to phase them out.
But what’s much more morally unconscionable is both political parties’ refusal to take seriously the now well-documented health risks for people who live near active wells. A major Pennsylvania-funded study released last year found that children living near fracking sites faced a higher risk of developing lymphoma, a form of cancer, and also showed links to low birth-weight babies and dramatically higher rates of asthma. The politicians who normally tell voters that nothing matters more than the life of the child managed to sweep this bombshell report under the rug.
Maybe a good question for Harris at Tuesday’s make-or-break debate here in Philadelphia would be not to yet again ask her why she briefly opposed fracking in 2019, but to prod her on how she can support it now when little kids are getting cancer. Maybe that level of scrutiny would prompt her not necessarily to back an immediate fracking ban—even many environmentalists like O’Leary say that isn’t realistic or practical—but to get more specific on a plan to phase out fossil fuels and create thousands of clean energy jobs as quickly as possible.
Until she does that, Pennsylvania voters like Dimock’s Switzer are going to be wary of the Democrats’ newly minted nominee. “I wish maybe she’d take a look at it [fracking] when she’s safely in office and have some kind of panel,” she said, recalling how Barack Obama once promised fracking was “a bridge” to clean energy, and yet “that bridge keeps getting longer and longer.”
That’s what a lot of Pennsylvanians would tell Harris and her campaign—as long as they listen to us and not the clueless political experts up and down I-95.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular